which, as a whole, is a lot more conservative than DU.

I don't see people saying Catholics can't be liberals, or part of the Democratic Party, or on DU, I just see people asking legitimate questions and criticizing people for associating and identifying with a homophobic and misogynist organization. Such criticism wouldn't cause any controversy on here if the organization was a secular one, but religion still gets special treatment.

It isn't friendly fire, or a purge, it's asking sincere and honest questions and making legitimate criticisms.

When an organization that discriminates against you and your friends, and lends monetary support to those who would take away yours and other's rights appoints a new leader, and there is a thread on DU congratulating members of that organization for their new leader, who holds the same bigoted beliefs, try to imagine how that feels. Just because it's a religion doesn't mean it or its members should get a pass.

DU is a great place of all to have these sorts of discussions. No, this isn't saying that the Democratic Party should begin a purge of purity. It's being able to have deep and relevant discussions on the issues that oftentimes is not possible anywhere else, because of the realities you cite.

"criticizing people for associating and identifying with a homophobic and misogynist organization" moves toward the territory of saying "Catholics can't be liberal" given what our pretty much consensus definition of what being a liberal involves. Not precisely I admit, but there are strong undertones of that type condemnation implied within that quote. Look, this all falls within the realm of subjective to an extent. Asking legitimate questions is a horse of a slightly different color including respectfully asking something like "How do you as a liberal in good conscience feel comfortable being in the Catholic Church?" if that question is sincere and not a set up for pouncing on someone no matter what they reply.

See, that is the personal part. I think most liberal Catholics are not offended about criticism of the Catholic Church in and of itself. And that includes the Pope and pedophile priests and current church dogma on priests having to be males etc. Plenty of Catholics are unhappy with many aspects of the Catholic Church, but they want the dignity of having their choice accepted or at least not attacked should they chose to remain in the Catholic Church for other reasons, or to fight for change from within it.

You know there is that ancient folklore saying that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Asking Catholics to consider refraining from giving any financial support to the Church in any form comes across quite differently than condemning those who still do.

The organization Catholic Charities has done at least in Buffalo. They help those that the safety net spits out like a bad taste and work with and on behalf of people that would now be homeless without such help. They also make sure that those that need psychiatric help get access to it. They provide counseling to people reaching their end that would likely commit suicide if not helped in time. They provide food and hope to those that the great liberals of suburbia give only pity and condescension to. They do this without proselytizing if you mistakenly believe that to be the case.

Liberal Catholics believe in works as well as faith while most evangelicals feel that works matter not at all, only grace, and it shows in their Calvinistic attitude towards the poor and this odd belief that the wealthy are blessed by God and are his favorites.

I'm a goddamn witch and even I can see that nuns on a bus and the volunteers that give their time and money to help the poor are NOT THE FUCKING SAME as the Opus Dei freaks, Catholics where I grew up at least, are very liberal and the first to offer help to those that need it.

I have many issues with the church, many very serious issues, but not with the Catholics I know, The hatred towards my friendliest neighbors is really starting to piss me off.

Get to know your neighbors.

Criticizing liberals for associating with bigoted and conservative organizatoins is not saying "you can't be liberal", it's saying, "hey, you're liberal, so why are you part of these organizations?" It's pointing out cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty. There are no strong undertones. I think many people on here are very sensitive and offended when it comes to criticism aimed at religion, but if it was a secular organization, there would be no controversy.

I'm guessing all Catholics would rather you criticize the Church heirarchy only and say "but yes, the people who choose to still be members, their A-OK". But that's just a great way to deflect the question and not deal with the fact that they are associating themsevles with that heirarchy.

Religious people have no more "right" to have their "dignity" protected by shutting up all relevant legitimate criticism of their association with a bigoted organization. And yes, they will be criticized for remaining part of an incredibly bigoted, top-down organization that has no way for these liberals to change it, even as this same institution actively discriminates and spouts bigotry of all sorts.

I'm sure people would never like to be criticized, but tip-toeing around such subjects to not hurt someone's percieved "dignity" is not required and not effective either. That's part of the problem of religion, it gets such a huge pass and is allowed to continue to do things with much less scrutiny than secular organizations get because of this privilege it has as somehow being above criticism. No, your personal religious beliefs are no more off-limits than your personal political beliefs.

Not sarcasm, sadly. Great post btw, I think you nailed it.

Somebody has to keep the lights on.

The RCC is also known for helping the poor. They usually have pretty good schools.

I don't consider myself to be giving money to those who want to hurt gays. It's not like the Pope gets a vote.

Let's put it another way. We're a big bulk of your party's votes. Through all the whining and complaining about the Democratic Party supposedly being bad for the church, a good chunk of Catholics voted that way. Just food for thought.

I know it's a few days after you posted your comment, I came back to read it again. I still feel the same insult. I am Catholic, I am Democratic, I am liberal. I have been all of those all my life, you can say I was born into it, it's in my genes. I'm 70, do you have a problem with me?

there would be no Republican Party

but I really don't like to get into the one true scotsman idea.

pretending that is the case.

Why would the party want to rid itself of good Democrats?

They don't pay any attention to their priests on those issues any more than southern women do to their nut job preachers and politicians. Ever looked at the rate of teen pregnancy and abortion in the South? Why the hell do you think the politicians are trying to get rid of abortion clinics there? Because they are utilized.

You have some research to do. There aren't that many Catholics in the South except for LA. Catholic women USE birth control. And need fewer abortions because of it.

but there are LOTS of Catholics in the South. And they don't have get abortions either; they just have very large families.

Very, very few in fact. Two families in the entire county. Regular families. Two and three kids each.

My husband is Italian. Catholic. We have two children. We used birth control. Any other comments about Catholics and demographics?

Of course, our definition of 'the South' may not be the same.

I live in an area that is 70% Mexican-American.

I also worked in the maternity ward.

My first years were spent in Texas. That was not even true back then, much less now. It's not true for Italians or the Irish or any other Catholic demographic you can name, as long as they have access to birth control. Like everyone else on the planet, access to health care is the issue - not religion. You've made some disturbing generalizations.

I just said large families, which relative to Anglo families, is true.

Of course, access to BC vs. religious prohibition of it is an issue. I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you make it, though.

teachings in their original form were about a more complete gestalt of social and economic justice, in which anti-War and anti-Capital Punishment were NOT optional.

One aspect of Pro-CHOICE that is kind of glossed over is whether people are authentically making a choice . If there's only one thing to choose, abortion, there's no choice. Are people free enough to choose one or the other, motherhood or abortion, or are their decisions coerced by overt or covert factors that are, intentionally or otherwise, being ignored?, such as economic justice, or social injustices like the oppression of sexual orientation, which mitigate in favor of pregnancy above all else. Obviously, absolute freedom is extremely rare, because freedom is not a zero-sum commodity, but there are real questions about the extent, the degree, to which any given decision is the result of oppression of one kind or another, compared to the degree to which it is sourced in a free un-coerced volition.

Though I may disagree with how any given woman makes that kind of decision/"choice", I WILL defend the freedom of ALL women to make their own CHOICES, pro- or anti- pregnancy, as freely and honestly as possible in their own circumstances, because right or wrong, it is that call to mature responsibility in whatever one decides, and the freedom to engage that responsibility fully on one's own terms, that will result in the happiest people (women, children, mothers, parents, families, non-families) all around, because it makes it possible for individual people to learn from their own lives, from what they get right and what they get wrong, and it is that personalized learning that makes authentic change/life possible.

With the exception that LGBTQ do not choose to be whom they are, most of these points about social and economic justice also apply to them in a similar manner, because, though (like women) they are who/what they are, there are also choices to be made about how they live their own truths and those choices are affected by social and economic justice.

Fundamentally related social and economic principles are inherent in the original Pro-Life teachings which recognized how pregnancy, war, and criminality are affected by the facts of social and economic in/justice. Much of that was reinforced, subsequently, by Vatican II.

The RC church has been trying to FORGET Vatican II for at least the last 30 years as they PROSTITUTED their original Pro-life/Pro-Social-and-Economic-Justice principles for political payoffs, which, I personally believe, achieved their culmination in the AMERICAN RC church's tacit (and covert though quite strong) support of the War on Iraq, which was supposed to earn George Bush the political capital #1. to privatize Social Security (in order to insure the protection of the banks in the financial crisis that they all knew was headed our way) and #2. to nominate an appropriately anti-Choice, and likely RC church picked, justice to SCOTUS in order to over-turn Roe v. Wade.

I guess what I'm trying to tell you, sadbear, (in a rather too quick sketch I'm sorry to say) is that there indeed forces within the RC church about whom your concerns are justified. There are also authentically Catholic forces within the RC church who are your OLDEST and deepest allies against oppression and that includes, most especially, royal religious political oppression of women, children, and our LGBT brothers and sisters.

at elast the reproductive side of it. i haven't really seen stats, on polls on rank and file catholics on marirage equality, but i be they are much more for equality than their churches leadership.

on reproductive issues and marriage equality. May I ask who the "we" is that you are referring to?

I'm pretty sure they're priorities are in order. I'm talking about Catholics not on DU.

With the exception of Hispanics, there are more Catholics calling themselves republican and voting with republicans, including the hard right fundies. I know one Catholic on the US Supreme Court that I wished would retire and not be there. I was in a cemetery earlier today and saw a headstone that read "Scalia", I apologize to the family of the person buried there and to God for the terribly evil thought that momentarily crossed my mind, one should never wish another person dead.

I myself (and I know it means nothing but I myself) only know Catholics that are repugs
no dems
Now it' s a party of people that can not say anything that offends Catholics??
Seems Catholics are offended by a lot of things that are none of their biz IMO

town in PA. The majority was Catholic of various ethnic groups. The majority of the town was Democratic. There was a time I use to think all Catholics were Democrats. It is different now, yes. I find the more fundamental Catholics tend to be republicans. And Social justice Catholics tend to be Democratic. I am loosely generalizing here, but it's pretty close. And no, not all Democrats are Catholic, just in case someone misunderstands what I'm stating.

The church here is anti choice pro adam and eve that much I know from declarations on their sign outside
I do not have any close friends that are present day Catholic, just folks I know from the community, neighbourhood, that belong to the RCC.
and yes that's why I said I know it is just my experience but also it is not just Scalia that is Catholic in conservative SCOTUS either!

as is Sotomayor.

The white Catholic vote:
2000: Gore 45%, Bush 52%
2004: Kerry 43%, Bush 56%
2008: Obama 47%, McCain 52%
2012: Obama 40%, Romney 59%

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx

So, yeah, it would be nice if they had supported the Democratic candidate more than the Republican some time in the last 13 years, but they haven't. Even when the Dem was a white Catholic himself. And it was the worst of all in 2012.

However, since many Catholics of immigrant backgrounds like Irish and Italian are also working class and union members. Democrats can't afford to lose union members.

the democratic party needs to be looking out for all that are under the boot heel of the 1%.

approval because it is our right as free americans to vote. Now to me this is silly talk and laughable. I have always been a catholic from birth and since I have been able to vote I always vote dem.

There are Catholics in every political party for the same reasons that there are maembers of every religion in every Party, and non-beievers too. However if there were a significant shift in the future of Democrats staying home or voting Republican instead of Democratic on election days - that would make it much more difficult for Democrats to win many national and state elections.

They're still as overtly "catholic" as they ever were ( based on the stuff they say ) but turned suddenly into hard right bigots and now vote repub.

them use to be a nun...

They were more center-left before a black man ran for president. Disgusting.

I know it sounds strange, but they advocate all sorts of progressive causes. Back during the Iraq war, they were involved in many anti-war protests. They also promote sustainable farming practices.

I think it would be foolish to exclude people based on religious preferences. It would be undemocratic IMO.

Catholics, and I don't see why it should be any different today.

In the US we had Bob and Ted Kennedy and the Berrigan Brothers, to cite only a few of the more famous examples.

In Latin America we had the whole liberation theology movement, which was instrumental in overthrowing Somoza.

The idea of purging Catholics or making progressive Catholics unwelcome in the Democratic Party is not only intolerant, it's absurd.

I'm glad this OP is here.

I did.

It's not like you have to stop being Christian either. I didn't.

There is also a long proud tradition in of Americans who became expats because they no longer felt they could remain a part of a nation and society with the faults that this nation had/has. I honor that choice by those who make it if that is right for them. And while emmigration to some nations is difficult, there are many options and those hurdles have not stopped many people of conscience from abandoning life inside the United States of America for principled reasons. But I will never tell anyone who acknowledges faults in the United States of America to "love it or leave it", and I will not say that to a liberal Catholic either.

I left it before I was even in high school. And doing so was far easier than getting into college. It didn't require any effort at all. I just told my mom I would not associate with the church anymore, wouldn't participate and if she took me to Mass I wouldn't take communion. My mom was fine, especially since she then started taking us to the Lutheran church nearby more often.

For one thing, it is an analogy, and analogies are never perfect because different situations are never totally analogous. I agree that for most people leaving their homeland may be harder than leaving their religion - for logistical reasons if for no others. But that doesn't drain all meaning from the analogy. I think is still conveys an element of truth, even if the scale of the comparison differs. And while I agree with you regarding most people, I do not think that holds true for all. We humans differ among ourselves on how intrinsic and central our religion (if we have one) is to our personal identity and understanding of the world. For many leaving one's religion can be a deep and profound uprooting - more so than moving from one location to another physically. The reasons for that vary from one person to another, and like you point to in your own life, for some it is no big deal. My basic point is I am extremely reluctant to tell anyone else that their choice in life is confined to "love it or leave it".

America has been full of slavery, child murder, animal sacrifice and all kinds of horrendous stuff.

You haven't left America.

Is it possible to affiliate with a group with a large history of bad ideas and ongoing corruption without being a part of that yourself?

Yep. I was too quick on the draw. My bad. This place gets a little weird sometimes. I've no doubt I add to that factor daily.

as a Catholic Christian and a professed Secular Franciscan, I don't leave because the Church is MY home. Dysfunctional family though it may be, it's the faith and the faithful I was brought up in and grew to love, LONG before I knew what politics were.

And on the basis of politics, I will not be run out of MY home.

DU is not representative of anything but DU ... there is no lack of welcome for catholics within the Democratic party.

Think Joe Biden, John Kerry ... in many ways the Kennedy's were Democratic Party "royalty" for a generation.

Marriage, they would all be republicans, and that simply isn't the case, nor is the fact that the Democratic Party, is not an exclusionary party

It cost them quite a bit - so much, in fact, that there's still a large portion of the country they rarely win any elections in.

But it was a stand worth taking.

When Catholics threaten damage to the Democratic Party if they get upset enough to leave (from what exactly, I'm not sure - posts on an anonymous Internet message board?), it reminds me of how abusers talk. "Don't make me hit you again!"

I'm an atheist, and despite what Democrats have said about atheists and/or atheism, both in real life AND on DU, I'm not abandoning the party. My values and ideals are stronger than that. Apparently they aren't for Catholics.

Excellent post.

I wanted to write "if Catholics stopped feeling welcome in..." rather than "being welcome in" but that used more letters than the subject window allowed so I crimped. And I was referring to the electoral balence of power between the Democratic and Republican parties. From where things stand now, just a 5% shift of Catholic voter identification from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party would swing a number of key national and state elections to Republicans. That would, among other things, contribute to significant setbacks for the GLBT cause and for women's reproductive rights.

pro-gay-rights, anti-pedophilia.

Plus I'm dead set against catholics being able to force their religion on others via this newfound objection to health insurance paying for birth control.

If you want to claim that means I'm against catholic people, you're welcome to that erroneous position. But I'm also not going to shut up about what the church has been doing.

If you don't like the positions your religion is taking, it's up to you to reform your religion.

I would never presume you are against Catholic people unless you said something that directly indicated that you were. Being adamently against policies of the Catholic Church, including elements of dogma, would not, for me anyway, by itself make me think you were antii-Catholics. I will say this though. The Catholic Church is not pedophelic though there clearly have been and most likely still are pedophiles within the Church. On top of that you will get no argument from me that major elements of the Church leadership, reaching up to the papacy, were complicit in enabling pedophiles to continue to victimize children.

Still I make that distinction because it was never the teaching of that Church to condone pedophilia as we now understand it anyway (lots of people used to marry as young teens in days of old - both of my grandmothers did in fact). Those leaders of the Church who enabled pedophiles or even were pedophiles themselves can only be viewed harshly, at the mildest end of the spectrum ,depending on their level of complicity. They subverted both the teachings and the responsibility of the Church to minister to its members and protect them from predators. Those elements must be uprooted from participation and influence within the Catholic Church, but it should be noted that ultimately they will only be uprooted by Catholics of good faith and morals who remain within the Church to confront them

It's their church. Yet they've done little to nothing to pressure the church to reform.

You, and they, keep trying to split hairs by separating Catholics from their church. It's their church. It's their responsibility to demand reform. Not just keep babbling, "Oh, yeah, we just ignore those parts. We're good people. But we couldn't possibly confront our church over those parts".

While the Catholic people bear less responsibility than the church hierarchy, the Catholic people have also refused to pressure that hierarchy into entering the 19th century. As a result, they should still bear some of the blame for the church's problems.

And we have more tools at our disposal for changing our governments policies and practices relatively quickly than do members of most large organized religions, let alone the Catholic Church wit a couple of centuries worth of inertia behind it. None of can usually say with any real knowledge what an individual Catholic has or has not done to press their disagreement with anything that goes on in their own parish or the whole Catholic Church. At the very least I think it wrong to presume that many Catholics who remain in the Church do not actively work toward social justice both inside and outside of their Church in ways that they feel able to. It could also be said that everyone who voted against George W. Bush could have done more to stop him if they were not willing to committ acts of civil disobedience against his war also, for example.

Again, I am not Catholic and I have trouble with all organized religions. But it is central to almost all religions that prayer of some sort can change the course of history, on both the personal and global scale. I myself chose to be a political activist active on the material plane, so to speak, but when one discusses the faithful - and that includeds the majoirity of human beings on this planet, work on a spiritual plane is thought meaningful also. There are millions of Catholics who pray for changes in the Catholic Church along lines you would likely favor. I'm not saying that is all they do, but they attempt to appeal to God itself that justice may prevail on this earth, over the heads of Church leaders if need be. Personally I have no problem with anyone urging practicing Catholics to fight hard against injustice within the Church itself - I draw the line on presuming individual catholics are complicit with injustice if they do not leave that Church.

The fact that the media did not cover the anti-war protests doesn't mean such protests didn't happen. In addition, W barely won re-election. A "popular war president" should have crushed Kerry, not won by single digits.

But the big difference is people tried to change course.

The solution for Catholics seems to be to just ignore the parts they don't like without trying to change anything.

You should be able to see the difference between those two.

You responded to an OP I posted which is fine, great, glad you did etc. But because your reply was the context of this thread not everything I said in my reply was directed at your words only. You say I raised a strawman argument about people wanting people to leave the Church because of things the Church has done or proclaims as dogma (and I use the term "want" instead of requir intentionally) - that is not a strawman in my opinion. Such sentiments have been posted muliple times on DU this week, along the lines of if you oppose what the Church is doing you should not paticipate in an organization that violates the values you profess to have. By all means not all opponents of the Catholic Church on DU have gone there, but some had. Some have given the opinion that not leaving the Church makes one complicit with the sins of the Church. I never suggested that you personally wanted Catholics to leave the Church - I was stating where I drew the line, not saying that you had crossed it. If I was unclear about that I apologize for leaving that impression.

"doing something really really quiet..." Huh? Haven't you been reading this board at all? Plenty of Catholics here have openly spoken out in defiance of current Church teachings in several areas, and expressed outrage over the enabling of pedophile priests etc. Not just this week, but regularly. This is just one BB, but it is a large one and liberal Ctholics write letters to the editors of newpapers, take part in Yahoo forums etc also. I focus on DU because that is where we are. Many Catholic politicians openly go against the Catholic Church in defending a woman's right to choose. John Kerry ran for President and did so. Andrew Cuomo fought to get Gay marriage legalized in New York State against the will of the Catholic bishops, and those are just two quick examples off the tip of my tongue.

When the last two Popes came to America they met with Catholic groups that were organized to fight for the victims of pedophila by priests, including many abuse survivors. They organized and lobbied the Church internally to get that face time with the Pope. You indirectly ridicule praor, but for believers prayor is a powerful force, that is one reason why we always see prayor vigils spring up when ever there is a mass shooting. We see people noting that they are praying for DU members who are ill all of the time on this very liberal forum.

If the media doesn't cover acts of protest against an American war by American citizens you certainly aren't likely to hear about what is happening at the parish level in the Catholic Church. It's been a long time since I had contact with the gay Catholics who formed Dignity to oppose Church teachings on homosexuality - but I very much doubt they have given up and gone away.

What percentage of Democrats do you figure did anything on a public enough level that anyone other than their close friends and family would know that they opposed the Iraq war beyond voting against George W. Bush? What percentage of Democratic voters wrote letters to the editor or marched in the streets? What percentage risked jail through civil disobediance to stop the War Machine? Yes many did one or more of those things but the vast majority did not. Does that mean they didn't try to stop the war? Do you hold them in low esteem as well?

than the "we just ignore that" group can defend their church.

I really don't care that others are making extreme demands.

Remember - those Theses were only nailed to one door in Germany. They were not intended to change the world, but to voice objections. They ended up changing the Christian world a great deal.

i'm saying drop a note in the collection plate. Or make a minor fuss when you talk to your priest. I'm not requiring a large-scale organized protest outside the Vatican.

I am not requiring such Catholics to defend their hierarchy, and as such I see no reason I should defend the "you must abandon your church" crowd.

engage in that activity. Peace. (and yes I am retiring from this thread but we had a long discussion and it feels right to end with closure).

I have never seen such prejudice here at DU. We are Democrats, we have a big tent, but the feeling here lately is there is a "unwelcome" mat out. Although I have a low post count, I've been here for a few years. Always felt I was among my fellow Dems - Liberals. The sane people. Now it feels like there is a litmus test. Sad, very sad.

Quietly putting your tithe in the collection plate and saying "we just ignore that" isn't ok. Putting a note in the collection plate about giving your tithe to "nuns on the bus" instead is. Even if it doesn't end up changing the policy.

One's protest doesn't have to be successful. But one must protest, even unsuccessfully, instead of "just ignoring that".

Due to this issue. I told them where their money was going instead.

Again, the protest does not have to be loud, nor effective. You just have to direct it to the people that matter.

have not seen on DU. No one is more outraged and concerned about the pedophilia within the Catholic church than the parents of those children who have been victims of this horrendous evil, children who are most likely Catholic as are their parents.

Is there some statistic to back up your statement or is this just a guess?

I simply asked if there was data to back up a claim. I said nothing about Catholic parents wanting their children raped.

that's not what I'm "demanding".

I think there is some mis-communication. I should have been more specific. I don't doubt that the victims are the most outraged. That seems obvious.

But I apparently misunderstood corneliamcgillicutty's post to mean that they remained Catholics after such abuses. I was wondering if there were any statistics to back up such a statement.

using an increasingly difficult to find power of discernment called "common sense".

sought and received audiances with the Pope in America over the issue of child sex abuse by priests and Church coverups of that behavior. Do some google searches if you are interested.

Do the Catholic victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church remain members of the Catholic Church? Are there statistics for that?

All I have tyuned into are some accounts from those who fall into both categories. I don't know of any statistical studies but I haven't looked. I suspect the division is not overwhelmingly lopsided in either direction, butI admit I do not know. But as a rule of thumg, victims of abuse by any institution - even one where such abuse is way outside the norm, tend to pull away from that institution in larger numbers than those who never were victims. That gets down to the level of henceforth avoiding hospitals where some error occurred during treatment - even if that mistake is no less likely to happen at other hospitals etc.

is that it is most likely Catholic children who attend Catholiic school and/or partake in sports, religious activities, etc. sponsored by the Catholic school/church with which they are affiliated who would be the most likely victims of pedophile priests due to their alliance with/proximity to the pedophile(s).

One shouldn't confuse a small subset of DU with DU itself, much less try to extrapolate into some party-wide schism.

And I like everyone else here am only engaging in a discussion, it's not like I'm trying to lobby the Democratic National Committee to allocate funds for a media campaign against Catholic bashing or whatever. But there is always some wisdom about speaking up when you see something that bothers you where you are at, and I spend time here at DU. There is a reason why "to nip something in the bud" is a common expression widely used - there is sound logic to it

...the way I do rank-and-file Republicans. They are not my enemies; they are my fellow victims, and they are uniquely placed to make a difference...if I manage not to piss 'em off too bad.

Just speaking for myself I think this DU debate is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Far as I can see, everyone has pretty much made their points whatever they are. Rehashing and rehashing it much more only becomes a general clusterfxck more fhan anything else

I agree, there is wisdom in speaking up when something bothers you. But you seem to be telling others to shut up and let the Pope slam us as Satanic out of respect for his followers, who don't believe a word he says, but get offended if he is not honored openly.
Francis is a homophobic bigot. Why don't you want to nip THAT in the bud? In your nation, and mine, most States allow for open discrimination against gay people, none toward any religious group. Where are your posts about that?
Someone said the Pope is a bigot, and you are very upset. Pope says gays are satan's work, you are understanding of him, calling for more kindness toward him.
Church paid for Prop 8. Am I allowed to oppose that if the Church supports it?

I've posted a lot about this Catholic related stuff over the last few days. Show me one post where I have in any way been upset about anyone at DU being upset with the Pope. There isn't one. And there won't be one either It is possible I might feel moved at some point in the future to refute an outright lie if told about him or anyone else without a factual basis, but that's about it. My comments have never objected to people being angry with policies of the Church or its leaders. I'll leave it at that because I've already made several attempts on this thread and others to explain what I do and don't object to - I honestly don't think I am capable of saying it any clearer.

during election season.

If Catholics explicitly weren't welcome in the Democratic party, you might have a tough time winning RI (63%), Penn (53%), MA (44%), NJ (39%), CA (37%), and NY (36%).

all deity based religions promote ignorance, bigotry and hatred.

For god's sake, grow a thicker skin. I am sick to death of believers being so knee-jerk sensitive that they get their knickers in a twist when their religion is criticized. If telling them that their church enables and protects pedophiles makes them vote for a repuke, then I say don't let the door hit you where evolution split you.

the Church has enabled and protected pedophiles (I only say "far too often" as a conditioner because not every Bishop at the dioscese level has been guilty of that - but I agree that the protection of pedophiles has gone on up to and including the highest levels of the Vatican). So the vast majority of liberal Catholics at least - and there are millions of them - already know it and agree with you. There is nothing upsetting about hearing or seeing that charge made. What is upsetting to all of us is the pedophilia, and the enabling and protection of it. That is not controversial with Catholics on DU. I haven't seen Catholics here, or those, like me, who while not Catholics have been drawn into this discussion, object to the type of charges you are making here unless you were to claim that all priests and nuns and deacons etc. were OK with it.

will always be welcome in the Democratic Party. Just because some people are vocalizing dislike for the organization doesn't mean that Catholics aren't welcome.

I do see quite alot of people speaking out against the corrupt and criminal leadership of the Catholic church.

There is a big difference.

as Democrats. I have seen some comments that Catholics should leave the Church or at least not donate any money to any of its aspects if they have progressive opinions at odds with Church leaders- and rarer comments that imply that anyone who remains a practicing Catholic has to share in complicity for the wrongs of the Church - and that can be alienating - we have already seen that here. Peace

Yes, there will always be Catholics in the Democratic Party. And there will always be DUers who will post noise against the Church hierarchy and equate their actions to those of us in the pews. We have a new Pope. Upswing in the nasty posts. Disappointing, of course. Surprising? Not in the least.

WE know it's not true. We'll still vote our consciences as progressives, yes? Get over it already.

Bashing someone for being a member of a religion is not cool.